High Court · 2025

2. Heard Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Sri Katyayan Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2/informant/victim as well as perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1025 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 809 of 2018, under Sections- 376, 506 IPC and Section- 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Krishnanagar, District- Lucknow.

4. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2/informant/victim on account of the dispute related to first floor of the premises of the opposite party No. 2, of which, the appellant was the tenant for some time and the said dispute was in fact settled by providing two Cheques dated 10.10.2018 and 20.12.2018 amounting to total Rs. 3,90,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Ninety Thousands Only) annexed as Annexure No. RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 14.07.2025 filed on behalf of the appellant in the Court today.

5. It is further stated that on account of insufficiency of fund, both of these cheques were bounced. In this view of the matter, the opposite party No. 2 ought to have instituted the proceedings in terms of the provisions as envisaged under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, however, she chose to lodge the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0809/2018 against the appellant making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at Police Station- Krishnanagar, District- Lucknow and according to the FIR, the appellant committed crime in the mid night of 13- 14.12.2018 at about 2.00 A.M.

6. It is further stated that the opposite party No. 2 got herself medically examined and as per the medico-legal examination report of the opposite party No. 2 annexed at 38 of the paper book (Annexure No. 3 to the instant appeal) would indicate that the doctor concerned found no injury over the body of the opposite party No. 2, who is a married lady having two children.

7. It is further stated that as per the FIR/case of prosecution, the appellant committed crime with the opposite party No. 2 in her portion of the house in the mid night of 13-14.12.2018 at about 2.00 A.M., however, there is no explanation with the prosecution with regard to entering into the said portion of the house of the opposite party No. 2.

8. Further submission is that if the allegations as levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value then some injury ought to have been found over the body of the opposite party No. 2.

9. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 05.02.2025. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail. It is stated that the appellant is an absconder. The period for which the appellant is absconding, as indicated, is five years.

11. It is also stated that the appellant was arrested after the process adopted by the court concerned in terms of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and he was sent to jail and he is languishing in jail since 05.02.2025.

12. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

13. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also that the appellant is in jail since 05.02.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, medical opinion and also the fact that the appellant was the tenant of one floor of the house of the opposite party No. 2/victim, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

14. Order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1025 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 809 of 2018, under Sections- 376, 506 IPC and Section- 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Krishnanagar, District- Lucknow is hereby set aside.

15. Let the appellant- Manish Parihar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

16. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

17. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Sri Romit Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State of U.P. and Sri Katyayan Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2/informant/victim as well as perused the record.

3. The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 against the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1025 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 809 of 2018, under Sections- 376, 506 IPC and Section- 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Krishnanagar, District- Lucknow.

4. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the opposite party No. 2/informant/victim on account of the dispute related to first floor of the premises of the opposite party No. 2, of which, the appellant was the tenant for some time and the said dispute was in fact settled by providing two Cheques dated 10.10.2018 and 20.12.2018 amounting to total Rs. 3,90,000/- (Rs. Three Lakhs Ninety Thousands Only) annexed as Annexure No. RA-1 to the rejoinder affidavit dated 14.07.2025 filed on behalf of the appellant in the Court today.

5. It is further stated that on account of insufficiency of fund, both of these cheques were bounced. In this view of the matter, the opposite party No. 2 ought to have instituted the proceedings in terms of the provisions as envisaged under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, however, she chose to lodge the FIR in issue i.e. FIR No. 0809/2018 against the appellant making allegations therein so as to attract the offences as indicated under Sections 376, 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act at Police Station- Krishnanagar, District- Lucknow and according to the FIR, the appellant committed crime in the mid night of 13- 14.12.2018 at about 2.00 A.M.

6. It is further stated that the opposite party No. 2 got herself medically examined and as per the medico-legal examination report of the opposite party No. 2 annexed at 38 of the paper book (Annexure No. 3 to the instant appeal) would indicate that the doctor concerned found no injury over the body of the opposite party No. 2, who is a married lady having two children.

7. It is further stated that as per the FIR/case of prosecution, the appellant committed crime with the opposite party No. 2 in her portion of the house in the mid night of 13-14.12.2018 at about 2.00 A.M., however, there is no explanation with the prosecution with regard to entering into the said portion of the house of the opposite party No. 2.

8. Further submission is that if the allegations as levelled in the FIR are taken on its face value then some injury ought to have been found over the body of the opposite party No. 2.

9. It is further submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 05.02.2025. In these circumstances, the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

10. Learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 opposed the prayer for bail. It is stated that the appellant is an absconder. The period for which the appellant is absconding, as indicated, is five years.

11. It is also stated that the appellant was arrested after the process adopted by the court concerned in terms of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. and he was sent to jail and he is languishing in jail since 05.02.2025.

12. Considered the submissions advanced by the counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and all the relevant documents placed on record.

13. Upon due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A., F.I.R., impugned order, as also that the appellant is in jail since 05.02.2025 and chances of conviction of the appellant in the instant case, medical opinion and also the fact that the appellant was the tenant of one floor of the house of the opposite party No. 2/victim, this Court finds that the present appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, it is allowed.

14. Order dated 24.02.2025 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Lucknow in Bail Application No. 1025 of 2025, arising out of FIR/Case Crime No. 809 of 2018, under Sections- 376, 506 IPC and Section- 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Krishnanagar, District- Lucknow is hereby set aside.

15. Let the appellant- Manish Parihar be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :- (i) The appellant shall cooperate with the prosecution during trial. (ii) The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant shall not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel. (vii) The appellant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. (viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

16. In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

17. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observation(s) made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation(s) made in this order. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Arun/- ARUN KUMAR GANGWAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench